honorversefandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Missile
Manty MDM missile specs Pulled this out until I can verify. Just reading Ashes of Victory, and the specs for the Manty two-stage MDMs is listed as as good or better than 3-stage Manty missiles in later books... Jabrwock 21:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC) * SKM three-stage - likely a mark 23 (SI2) ** drives firing immediately in sequence at maximum acceleration *** 180s of powered flight *** maximum powered missile envelope: 14.5 million km *** terminal velocity: 0.54c ** accel decreased to 46,000 G *** envelope: 65 million km (3.6 light-minutes) *** terminal velocity: 0.81c :::A note by different author: Those numbers dont exactly add up, for 2 stage missile to have powered envelope of 15 mil km at 96,000G each stage would need a flight time of 90s. Lowering to 1/2 of accel increases the flight time for an missile impeller drive to 300%, which means 270s per drive. That gives us at 48,000G a powered missile envelope of 68 mil ks and terminal velocity of 0.848c. Tried to find more data but was not successful. -- 10:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC) :::( Moved from the article until further discussed. -- SaganamiFan 16:22, November 27, 2009 (UTC) ) Telemetry links Havenite solution, spread missiles out into clumps, have rotating control links, so saves on bandwidth, only have to control each "clump". Reduced individual accuracy, but longer control time. Lack of increased bandwidth meant that they ran the risk of dropping control links altogether, with a 30% rate, but to compensate they just increased the size of the salvo. SI2 Jabrwock 14:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Moriarty Main control station - size of a heavy cruiser. Talked to remote platforms throughout the system. 34,000 missile capacity in it's control channels. Still limited to light-speed transmissions to missiles, but Moriarty used FTL to transmit to remote platforms. SI2 Jabrwock 14:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC) :"Peeps" had bulk of mothballed old SDs and planted Moriarty into tiny (defensless) CA hull.--dotz 22:11, January 9, 2010 (UTC) tantalum vs hafnium The article currentlys tates (footnote) that the RMN used tantalum-lithium bomb pumped lasers. But the Mark 16 (sotrm from the Shadows, IIRC) claims to be a hafnium bomb pumped laser warhead. Horrible Hemphill hasn't been answering my voicemale messages, so I decided ot put the question to the wikia authors. Which was it and if both, when was the changeover? Anyone has any ideas? Wikipedia ww 08:58, January 9, 2010 (UTC) :Ideas: # SI2 Mk16 warhead was improved (so tantalum-lithium/1905 could be changed with hafnium/1920) # if above explanation doesn't fit - there is "liber posterior derogat liber anterior" rule - the author has the right to correct himself # such matter could be discussed on Baen's Bar (don't remember it from infodump, but I am not a technician) # using "history" function you can find real author of tantalum-lithium info in this article and ask him directly (eg. source of referrence, probably Jayne's or "World of HH" essay). :--dotz 10:58, January 9, 2010 (UTC) ::I'd say it's a case of SEDWDKWTFHTA... -- SaganamiFan 00:13, January 10, 2010 (UTC) :::???? (don't know abbreviation, really) --dotz 05:50, January 10, 2010 (UTC) ::::What the cholera? --dotz 06:00, January 10, 2010 (UTC) ::::: Sometimes Even David Weber Doesn't Know What The Fuck He's Talking About. -- SaganamiFan 11:39, January 10, 2010 (UTC) ::::::My explanation in the first point is enough (BTW it is tertiary problem, what warheads were packed with).--dotz 12:45, January 10, 2010 (UTC) Split With Cataphract, the graser torpedo, the pod-laying arsenal ships and all, maybe we should start thinking about creating individual articles for weapon systems. Otherwise this page, and the Space Weapons Technology article, are only going to get more crowded... this could still serve as an overview article explaining overall PD warfare with missiles and listing all missile systems. -- SaganamiFan 05:01, February 17, 2010 (UTC) Wish I'd read the talk page before editing... I kinda like this page, but I wasn't sure how to handle the Mesan missiles. They belong on this page if it exists, but the individual pages have a little more to say. At the least, I think this page should exist as a link farm. Emteeoh 00:44, September 6, 2010 (UTC) :I totally agree. The list articles are a good basis to explain the concept and give an overview, but the more detailed information comes up, the more we will have split things up into individual articles. That's why I started splitting up the ship types, for example. -- SaganamiFan 02:25, September 6, 2010 (UTC) :Maybe we could start putting them into categories on this page and move the more detailed information to separate pages. It would also create the opportunity to reogranize this article because I was reading it earlier and I think that the 'nuclear warhead' and 'laser warhead' subsections should be in a section devoted exclusively to warheads. Not to mention that the Viper is mentioned in both the 'missile type' section and the 'counter missile' section. I know it's both, but that seems redundant to me. Plus I believe either Torch of Freedom, Storm from the Shadows, or Mission of Honor details the latest Solarian countermissile and it isn't list here. We could also put the Dazzler and Dragon's Teeth missiles in a section labeled 'Electronic Warfare Missiles'. -- DarkScribe 03:09, September 6, 2010 (UTC) ::I'm probably going to make separate articles for each country's missiles and related systems, so we can keep this article as a general one. --Farragut79 21:25, September 6, 2010 (UTC) How many missiles in missile pod? I mean Havenite design of 1913 PD - 14 missiles per pod? (the parameter to count how many BC had Tourville during First Zanzibar). --dotz 19:40, October 7, 2010 (UTC) Viper redirects here, but no info on Viper missiles. Viper redirects to this page, but there's no description of the missile. According to the the pages LAC and Manticoran Missile Types, this is Grayson's anti-LAC missile design. The latter page contains the most info, and I think the redirect should be pointed to that page instead of this one. If someone with the right edit privileges agrees and correct this, feel free to erase my comment afterwards. 03:43, December 30, 2010 (UTC)